Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.[W:963:1176:1448]

[SBu]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

That's the constant conservative assumption - "it's easy to find a job - the unemployed are just lazy." But here's reality:

McDonalds Hires 62,000, Turns Away Over 938,000 Applicants For Minimum Wage, Part-Time Jobs
McDonald’s and its franchisees hired 62,000 people in the U.S. after receiving more than one million applications, the Oak Brook, Illinois-based company said today in an e-mailed statement. Previously, it said it planned to hire 50,000.
The April 19 national hiring day was the company’s first, said Danya Proud, a McDonald’s spokeswoman. She declined to disclose how many of the jobs were full- versus part-time. McDonald’s employed 400,000 workers worldwide at company-owned stores at the end of 2010, according to a company filing.
Earlier this month, McDonald’s said sales at stores open at least 13 months climbed 2.9 percent in the U.S. after it attracted more diners with items such as beverages and the Chipotle BBQ Bacon Angus burger. The fast-food chain has about 14,000 stores in the U.S. and more than 18,000 abroad. About 80 percent of all McDonald’s stores are franchised.

In other words, y'all REALLY need to get off this "if they're unemployed, it's THEIR fault" schtick. Think about it, guy - when millions were laid off following the Great Recession, were there jobs available for them to immediately take? Of course not. And if you'll think about it, how did we finally recover from the Great Depression?

GOVERNMENT-FUNDED WORK. It was in the form of preparation for WWII, but it was STILL government-funded work...and government-funded work is PRECISELY what today's Right is most strongly against.



Actually, the one who "mentioned something about that" was Adam Smith, the "Father of Capitalism" whom I quoted in the OP.

Look, guy, if you really want a life lesson, I strongly recommend that you live in a third-world nation for a while. In such places, there's no "social safety net" - the people learn those "hard lessons" all the time...and life gets no better for them as a whole.

Ask yourself why it is that are NO - zero, zip, nada - nations that provide social safety nets that are part of the first-world community. If life worked as you seem to believe, all those oh-so-socialistic nanny states would be on the bottom of the economic heap, and the Randian paradises of "he who doesn't work, won't eat" would be on top. But in REALITY, it's just the opposite.

I can well understand why you think the way you do - I used to think as you do, too. But I came to understand that that way of thinking simply doesn't explain how the nations of today are the way they are.

Nice, cite one company to prove your theory that there is no work. You should know better that McDonalds can't and shouldn't employ the whole country. I stand by my argument. If you are out of work for 2+ years, it's your own fault.

Your second point is full of holes too. You neglect the fact that the richest countries became that way through other than socialist policies. Not saying that colonialism etc. is ok, just reminding you that socialism isn't the source of nation wealth. A lot more goes into the evolution of third world nations than what you suggest. I've traveled quite extensively, and arrived at quite the opposite idea. Capitalism is the only engine to shared wealth. But, unlike your assertions, there is a lot more that goes into a successful country. I'm not your guy, bro.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

you don't understand rights

if someone else has to pay for it it is not a right Its a handout.

we never engaged in anything like the "rape of Nanking" or Pearl Harbor. We get the fact that you would rather be safe-like a sheep in the pen than roaming free. but while wolves kill a few sheep, the farmer kills all he wants

"We never engaged in anything like the "rape of Nanking""?

Dude, you've got a LOT to learn about American history. How about the Trail of Tears? How about what we would today term "ethnic cleansing" that we did against Native Americans? And that's not all! How about the order the American general gave in the Philippines during the Huk rebellion (after we took over from Spain) - "Kill all Filipino males over the age of ten!" Of course the Japanese Internment and Jim Crow laws weren't quite so bad - at least we weren't killing them off wholesale like we did in the other examples - we just treated them like they weren't "real Americans".

You say, "if someone else has to pay for it, it's not a right - it's a handout". You've got a LOT to learn about life in general! Tell me, guy, what would it be worth to remove the single biggest cause of bankruptcies in America? Would that be a good thing for the economy, or a bad thing?

And let me ask you another question: if someone comes to an emergency room with a serious and possibly life-threatening medical issue, should that person be turned away if he or she can't pay for it?

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

studies note that Asians tend to be far more accepting of big government and far less supportive of individual rights which explains why they like Obama-he wants more big government and less individual rights

References, please.

And a note of caution - beware of sweeping broad-brush judgements - such are what lead to prejudice.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

Nothing. Either we win the fight and fix America permanently or we are dead and don't have to deal with the Liberal wastes of flesh and oxygen ever again. It's a Win - Win situation.

"Kill all the liberals". Very good, guy. The Saudis think the same way. So did the Cambodians under Pol Pot. Guy, you really need to look in a mirror.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

You can keep telling yourself, but I think you are only going to be disappointed.

This from The New Republic, a very leftist publication.
Obamacare Failure is a Threat to Liberalism | New Republic
Kirsten Powers: Obama 'Had a Total Lack of Curiosity' About ObamaCare Tech Problems

Liberalism, liberal / progressive policies are failing, and will likely take the whole idea of liberal activist government down with them. We can only hope so. I've not seen anything from this 'activist government', or any activist government, that has been any good, that has been well thought out, that was done on sound principals. Typically it costs everyone money they don't have and delivers less than what they got when under the private sector.

Really? Make sure you tell that to all the states where gay marriage is now legal, and to Washington and Colorado where pot is now legal.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

Nice, cite one company to prove your theory that there is no work. You should know better that McDonalds can't and shouldn't employ the whole country. I stand by my argument. If you are out of work for 2+ years, it's your own fault.

Your second point is full of holes too. You neglect the fact that the richest countries became that way through other than socialist policies. Not saying that colonialism etc. is ok, just reminding you that socialism isn't the source of nation wealth. A lot more goes into the evolution of third world nations than what you suggest. I've traveled quite extensively, and arrived at quite the opposite idea. Capitalism is the only engine to shared wealth. But, unlike your assertions, there is a lot more that goes into a successful country. I'm not your guy, bro.

"Cite one company"? How about entire nations? Would that work better for you? There's lots of companies that offer work...but there's a heck of a lot more people looking for work than there are jobs available - that's why I posted the story about McDonald's as just one example.

And if you've really traveled extensively, then you should already know that capitalism is more prevalent in third-world nations than in first-world nations - because in almost all such nations, you get absolutely nothing if you can't pay for it. If you can't pay for your health care or your food or for anything else, you're out of luck. And even if they have an 'official' minimum wage, don't expect to be paid that minimum wage - if you do, the boss will fire you on the spot.

That's purest capitalism, guy. If you really know the third world as well as you think, you know what I said is true.

ACCORDING TO CONSERVATIVE ECONOMIC DOGMA, the socialist policies that are found in ALL first-world democracies should be RUINING our economies. But they haven't done so, even though America's had such policies for eighty freaking years, and Europe and the Asian first-world nations have almost all had them for sixty years or more. So WHY are we still on top? Conservative dogma says we're doing it the worst way...but we're still on top after a half century. So what's wrong? Why are we still on top if conservative economic dogma is right?

 

[Jack Hays]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

Take two people, one that is poor, only earning the minimum wage, and one that is rich.

The poor person may not be paying any federal or state income taxes...but he does pay a lot of other taxes - sales tax, utility taxes, gas taxes, et al - and these taxes take up a much greater proportion of a that poor person's income than they do of a rich person's income. Of course, one might argue that these are only 'use taxes'...but if you think about it, all taxes are 'use taxes'...and any rich person uses FAR more of America's taxpayer-funded infrastructure than any poor person.

Adam Smith, the "Father of Capitalism", recognized this when he said:

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state."

and

“The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.”

But in today's political Right, the "Father of Capitalism" would be branded a bleeding-heart liberal socialist.

Be that as it may, conservatives are right about one thing - taxes ARE wealth redistribution. But when the rich pay the extra taxes, do those dollars go up in a puff of smoke? Of course not. When the poor get money - through whatever means, but preferably through work - they SPEND that money...and the money they spend helps to support their local businesses, which supports the local economy, which helps the national economy. HOWEVER, if a rich person decides to send their money to the Caymans or opens factories in China, those dollars are - as far as the American economy goes - WASTED.

That is why it is good for the nation - in morality and in effect - that the rich pay higher progressive taxes.

Then you should be happy because the top earners pay an extremely high proportion of federal taxes.eace

 

[Jack Hays]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

Take two people, one that is poor, only earning the minimum wage, and one that is rich.

The poor person may not be paying any federal or state income taxes...but he does pay a lot of other taxes - sales tax, utility taxes, gas taxes, et al - and these taxes take up a much greater proportion of a that poor person's income than they do of a rich person's income. Of course, one might argue that these are only 'use taxes'...but if you think about it, all taxes are 'use taxes'...and any rich person uses FAR more of America's taxpayer-funded infrastructure than any poor person.

Adam Smith, the "Father of Capitalism", recognized this when he said:

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state."

and

“The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.”

But in today's political Right, the "Father of Capitalism" would be branded a bleeding-heart liberal socialist.

Be that as it may, conservatives are right about one thing - taxes ARE wealth redistribution. But when the rich pay the extra taxes, do those dollars go up in a puff of smoke? Of course not. When the poor get money - through whatever means, but preferably through work - they SPEND that money...and the money they spend helps to support their local businesses, which supports the local economy, which helps the national economy. HOWEVER, if a rich person decides to send their money to the Caymans or opens factories in China, those dollars are - as far as the American economy goes - WASTED.

That is why it is good for the nation - in morality and in effect - that the rich pay higher progressive taxes.

[h=2]Who Pays Income Taxes and How Much?[/h]

Tax Year 2009​

Percentiles Ranked by AGI​	AGI Threshold on Percentiles​	Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid​
Top 1%​	$343,927​	36.73​
Top 5%​	$154,643​	58.66​
Top 10%​	$112,124​	70.47​
Top 25%​	$66,193​	87.30​
Top 50%​	$32,396​	97.75​
Bottom 50%​	<$32,396​	2.25​
Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income Source: Internal Revenue Service

eace

 

[Tigger]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

"Kill all the liberals". Very good, guy. The Saudis think the same way. So did the Cambodians under Pol Pot. Guy, you really need to look in a mirror.

I look in the mirror every day and have no problem with what is staring back at me. That's one of the benefits of being honest with yourself.... you know who and what you are and can be at peace with it.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

Easy. Any rich person depends upon America's education system to educate his employees, depends upon American taxpayers to pay for the road and sidewalk maintenance to ensure he can stock his store, and his customers can arrive. Any rich person depends upon America's taxpayer-funded military to protect the flow of products (including oil) to and from overseas. Any rich person depends upon America's taxpayer-funded law enforcement and fire protection to protect not only his home(s) but also his business(es). Any rich person depends upon America's taxpayer-funded regulatory agencies to protect him from large-scale fraud by banks and insurance agencies.

I can go on like this all day long...but you do get my point.

it doesn't cost the police any more money to "guard" my 3 million dollar home and estate as it does to guard a 30K home

you seem to think in terms of insurance replacement values

 

[Jack Hays]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

Nice, cite one company to prove your theory that there is no work. You should know better that McDonalds can't and shouldn't employ the whole country. I stand by my argument. If you are out of work for 2+ years, it's your own fault.

Your second point is full of holes too. You neglect the fact that the richest countries became that way through other than socialist policies. Not saying that colonialism etc. is ok, just reminding you that socialism isn't the source of nation wealth. A lot more goes into the evolution of third world nations than what you suggest. I've traveled quite extensively, and arrived at quite the opposite idea. Capitalism is the only engine to shared wealth. But, unlike your assertions, there is a lot more that goes into a successful country. I'm not your guy, bro.

All anyone has to do to be certain of finding a job today is to move to North Dakota.eace

 

[Jack Hays]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

Easy. Any rich person depends upon America's education system to educate his employees, depends upon American taxpayers to pay for the road and sidewalk maintenance to ensure he can stock his store, and his customers can arrive. Any rich person depends upon America's taxpayer-funded military to protect the flow of products (including oil) to and from overseas. Any rich person depends upon America's taxpayer-funded law enforcement and fire protection to protect not only his home(s) but also his business(es). Any rich person depends upon America's taxpayer-funded regulatory agencies to protect him from large-scale fraud by banks and insurance agencies.

I can go on like this all day long...but you do get my point.

But the rich don't rely on those things any more than anyone else.eace

 

[eohrnberger]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

Really? Make sure you tell that to all the states where gay marriage is now legal, and to Washington and Colorado where pot is now legal.

Social progressivism, fine. The people local to those locations can decide for themselves what they'll allow and what they won't. Besides, I think it's still an even bet that the recreational use of pot will be repealed once the supply chain is taken over by the violent drug cartels. Do you think that they'll not want to serve that lucrative market? I'm thinking they'll be willing to kill to have exclusive rights to that market.

Fiscal conservationism is a different matter.

If you talk to leading progressives these days, you'll be sure to hear this message: The Democratic Party should embrace the economic populism of New York Mayor-elect Bill de Blasio and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren. Such economic populism, they argue, should be the guiding star for Democrats heading into 2016. Nothing would be more disastrous for Democrats.
. . . .
The political problems of liberal populism are bad enough. Worse are the actual policies proposed by left-wing populists. The movement relies on a potent "we can have it all" fantasy that goes something like this: If we force the wealthy to pay higher taxes (there are 300,000 tax filers who earn more than $1 million), close a few corporate tax loopholes, and break up some big banks then—presto!—we can pay for, and even expand, existing entitlements. Meanwhile, we can invest more deeply in K-12 education, infrastructure, health research, clean energy and more.

Social Security is exhibit A of this populist political and economic fantasy. A growing cascade of baby boomers will be retiring in the coming years, and the Social Security formula increases their initial benefits faster than inflation. The problem is that since 2010 Social Security payouts to seniors have exceeded payroll taxes collected from workers. This imbalance widens inexorably until it devours the entire Social Security Trust Fund in 2031, according to the Congressional Budget Office. At that point, benefits would have to be slashed by about 23%.

Undeterred by this undebatable solvency crisis, Sen. Warren wants to increase benefits to all seniors, including billionaires, and to pay for them by increasing taxes on working people and their employers. Her approach requires a $750 billion tax hike over the next 10 years that hits mostly Millennials and Gen Xers, plus another $750 billion tax on the businesses that employ them.

Even more reckless is the populists' staunch refusal to address the coming Medicare crisis. In 2030, a typical couple reaching the eligibility age of 65 will have paid $180,000 in lifetime Medicare taxes but will get back $664,000 in benefits. Given that this disparity will be completely unaffordable, Sen. Warren and her acolytes are irresponsibly pushing off budget decisions that will guarantee huge benefit cuts and further tax hikes for Gen Xers and Millennials in a few decades.

As for the promise that unrestrained entitlements won't harm kids and public investments like infrastructure, public schools and college financial aid, haven't we seen this movie before? In the 1960s, the federal government spent $3 on such investments for every $1 on entitlements.

Jon Cowan and Jim Kessler: Economic Populism Is a Dead End for Democrats - WSJ.com

We seem to be forgetting that lately -- though Mao Zedong's redistributive failures in China, or present-day bankrupt Greece, should warn us about what happens when government tries to enforce an equality of result rather than of opportunity.

Even after the failure of statism at the end of the Cold War, the disasters of socialism in Venezuela and Cuba, and the recent financial meltdowns in the European Union, for some reason America is returning to a peasant mentality of a limited good that redistributes wealth rather than creates it. Candidate Obama's "spread the wealth" slip to Joe the Plumber simply was upgraded to President Obama's "I do think at a certain point you've made enough money."

The more his administration castigates insurers, businesses and doctors; raises taxes on the upper income brackets; and creates more regulations, the more those who create wealth are sitting out, neither hiring nor lending. The result is that traditional self-interested profit-makers are locking up trillions of dollars in unspent cash rather than using it to take risks and either lose money due to new red tape or see much of their profit largely confiscated through higher taxes.

No wonder that in such a climate of fear and suspicion, unemployment remains near 10 percent. Deficits chronically exceed $1 trillion per annum. And now the poverty rate has hit a historic high. We are all getting poorer in hopes that a few don't get richer.

The public is seldom told that 1 percent of taxpayers already pay 40 percent of the income taxes collected, while 40 percent of income earners are exempt from federal income tax -- or that present entitlements like Medicare and Social Security are financially unsustainable. Instead, they hear more often that those who managed to scheme to make above $250,000 per year have obligations to the rest of us to give back about 60 percent of what they earn in higher health care and income taxes -- together with payroll and rising state income taxes, and along with increased capital gains and inheritance taxes.

A Nation of Peasants? - Victor Davis Hanson - Page full

James M. Buchanan, a Nobel laureate in economics — and my former colleague and now professor emeritus at George Mason University — argued that deficit spending would evolve into a permanent disconnect between spending and revenue, precisely because it brings short-term gains. We end up institutionalizing irresponsibility in the federal government, the largest and most central institution in our society. As we fail to make progress on entitlement reform with each passing year, Professor Buchanan’s essentially moral critique of deficit spending looks more prophetic.

We are fooling ourselves most of all. United States government debt in public hands is now more than $9 trillion, but most people still don’t realize what it will take to pay that off.

It’s Time to Face the Fiscal Illusion

The latest example of economic liberalism policies failing is the lack of a real economic and jobs recovery these last 5 years, regardless of how many stimulus plans or initiatives Obama has instituted, GDP growth is weak, jobs are not gaining in any meaningful way, and we have the largest number of Americans NOT working who would rather be working in the history of the nation. Increasing punitive taxation on those that are successful isn't going to lead the path to prosperity, but rather to the successful fleeing the nation, as that same overly taxed population segment is now fleeing France.

The Fall of France

 

[sawdust]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

Take two people, one that is poor, only earning the minimum wage, and one that is rich.

The poor person may not be paying any federal or state income taxes...but he does pay a lot of other taxes - sales tax, utility taxes, gas taxes, et al - and these taxes take up a much greater proportion of a that poor person's income than they do of a rich person's income. Of course, one might argue that these are only 'use taxes'...but if you think about it, all taxes are 'use taxes'...and any rich person uses FAR more of America's taxpayer-funded infrastructure than any poor person.

Adam Smith, the "Father of Capitalism", recognized this when he said:

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state."

and

“The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.”

But in today's political Right, the "Father of Capitalism" would be branded a bleeding-heart liberal socialist.

Be that as it may, conservatives are right about one thing - taxes ARE wealth redistribution. But when the rich pay the extra taxes, do those dollars go up in a puff of smoke? Of course not. When the poor get money - through whatever means, but preferably through work - they SPEND that money...and the money they spend helps to support their local businesses, which supports the local economy, which helps the national economy. HOWEVER, if a rich person decides to send their money to the Caymans or opens factories in China, those dollars are - as far as the American economy goes - WASTED.

That is why it is good for the nation - in morality and in effect - that the rich pay higher progressive taxes.

Your numerous strawmen aside, you make the assumption that the economy is zero sum. That's the basis of all class warfare arguments. It's also why the class warfare argument is stupid. Don't be stupid.

 

[jonny5]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

Easy. Any rich person depends upon America's education system to educate his employees, depends upon American taxpayers to pay for the road and sidewalk maintenance to ensure he can stock his store, and his customers can arrive. Any rich person depends upon America's taxpayer-funded military to protect the flow of products (including oil) to and from overseas. Any rich person depends upon America's taxpayer-funded law enforcement and fire protection to protect not only his home(s) but also his business(es). Any rich person depends upon America's taxpayer-funded regulatory agencies to protect him from large-scale fraud by banks and insurance agencies.

I can go on like this all day long...but you do get my point.

But how do you know that's FAR MORE than poor people use? Don't poor people get and benefit from subsidized education, roads, sidewalks, military, oil, law enforcement, fire protection, regulation and banks. Paid for by rich people? We know that top the top 5% pay most of the taxes, and the poor pay none or almost no taxes. That would mean the poor are getting taxpayer funded infrastructure for nothing, and the rich are paying trillions. So wouldn't that mean the poor are using more infrastructure for less money?

 

[poweRob]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

There are no democracies.

What a dodge.

 

[poweRob]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

Really, is that why all those hispanics risk their lives to cross the border illegally knowing they have a job when they get here?

the programming is deep in this one

aaaaaannnnnd boom goes the dynamite.

In what the report called a “notable reversal of the historic pattern,” the number of Mexicans leaving rose sharply in the five years after 2005, while the new flow of migrants coming from Mexico into the United States fell steeply, Pew demographers found.

For the first time in at least two decades, the population of illegal immigrants from Mexico living in this country significantly decreased, according to the report. In 2011, about 6.1 million Mexicans were living here illegally, down from a peak of nearly 7 million in 2007, it said.

linkypoo...​

 

[Arbo]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

It is never moral to treat people differently. Period.

 

[poweRob]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

you don't understand rights

if someone else has to pay for it it is not a right Its a handout.

Remember that tomorrow when you are driving on that well paved handout, lit by those handout streetlights and you're not getting hit thanks to that hand-out stoplight. Or, heaven forbid, those hand-out firemen have to save your house.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

Remember that tomorrow when you are driving on that well paved handout, lit by those handout streetlights and you're not getting hit thanks to that hand-out stoplight. Or, heaven forbid, those hand-out firemen have to save your house.

that's moronic. you are confusing stuff that we all use with specific handouts

 

[poweRob]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

that's moronic. you are confusing stuff that we all use with specific handouts

you don't pay for all those things in full do you? Then it's a handout... per this statement:

if someone else has to pay for it it is not a right Its a handout.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

you don't pay for all those things in full do you? Then it's a handout... per this statement:

that's really stupid. I pay far more than my share.

 

[poweRob]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

that's really stupid. I pay far more than my share.

My main point is... this is what happens when you speak in such absolutes.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

My main point is... this is what happens when you speak in such absolutes.

here is the issue

when I pay taxes that are used to build highways or pay soldiers, that is a general benefit to everyone and yes, some people use the roads without paying much if any of the taxes that fund the roads. But the roads or the army are not specific benefits to specific individuals paid for by others unlike handouts like welfare. I receive absolutely NO benefit for tax dollars I pay being given to the unable or the unwilling

 

[Jack Hays]

Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.

here is the issue

when I pay taxes that are used to build highways or pay soldiers, that is a general benefit to everyone and yes, some people use the roads without paying much if any of the taxes that fund the roads. But the roads or the army are not specific benefits to specific individuals paid for by others unlike handouts like welfare. I receive absolutely NO benefit for tax dollars I pay being given to the unable or the unwilling

I believe the term you're looking for is "social overhead capital."eace